A. At around 07:20 on January 20, 2016, B driven a C Costex vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and drive three-lanes of the three-lane road, among the four-lane roads located in the Gang-dong, Sungnam-si, Samnam-si, Samnam-si, at the Sungnam-do intersection, from the right intersection, the said road was changed from 0.2km to 4-lane at the right intersection of the said road.

At the time, the Plaintiff, who was driving along the four-lanes of the above road, was shocking the right side of the Defendant vehicle, which was changing into the front side of the Plaintiff’s cargo vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff vehicle”).

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

In the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as a charnel, sloping, heart heat, verververging, and ververging, and received surgery and hospitalized treatment at an institution for the tea in the instant case.

C. After the instant accident, the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant, paid the insurance money for reference materials submitted by the Defendant after the closing of argument in KRW 29,138,750, which was the sum of the Plaintiff’s medical expenses at the tea hospital, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 1, and 2, documents sent to the branch office of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office in this Court, the results of the request for delivery of documents to the branch office of the branch office of the District Prosecutors' Office

2. Occurrence of liability for damages and limitation on liability;

A. According to the above facts, the accident in this case occurred due to the main mistake of the driver of the defendant vehicle who neglected the duty of care to drive safely by examining the traffic conditions before and after the change of the lane. Thus, the defendant, the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident in this case.

B. Meanwhile, in light of the circumstances leading up to the instant accident and the conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle, which can be seen through each of the above evidence, the Plaintiff’s mistake, which neglected the duty of safe driving, is deemed to have caused the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages, thereby limiting the Defendant’s responsibility to 70% of the total amount of damages.